Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
... humans have reached a post-evolutionary stage and a level of awareness that means we can't simply say that morality or ethics is biologically determined and therefore we only need to follow some sort of crude animalistic morality (live selfishly most of the time, but help defend the group when necessary and don't be seen to act out of line or we'll risk losing the group's protection).
|
I don't think that suggesting that their are evolutionary underpinnings of our morality means that our ethics are biologically determined. Any morality is likely an interaction between evolved psychological mechanisms and the ecological conditions in which we live.
I also don't think that evolutionary underpinnings to morality suggest that our morality is some sort of "crude animalistic morality". First, humans are animals. We likely have an "animalistic morality". Second, evolution by natural selection can create and has created very complex structures. A structure created by natural selection need not be "crude".
I also don't think that humans have reached a "post-evolutionary stage". This reminds me of an idea called the "Great Chain of Being" with humans at the top and different "lower" animals at lower rungs on the chain. (Like we have somehow reached the top and are no longer subject to natural events like the rest of life on earth). This is a fallacy. There is no "post-evolutionary stage". While selection may be operating differently today than it did on our forebearers, it is surely still operating. The only way to stop it would be for everyone to stop reproducing.
P.S. 4thTimeLucky: thanks for the economist reference. I'll have to take a look. Also, thanks for the thought provoking post.
John Henry: Thanks for posting this thread. It has made me think.